User talk:AlisonW/Archive 1

Welcome
Hey there, . Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you enjoy being a Wikipedian and decide to stay! Here are a few good links for newcomers (or "oldcomers" for reference):

By the way, you should sign and date your comments on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. Three tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

Great, just what we need around this place... more people who were mysteriously made sysop. :) Cheers.

I had seen you were never officially welcomed, so in order to not make you feel left out, I did my best. And if what James says above is true, I'll be on the lookout for any suspicious sock activity. ;-) See you around. -- You Know Who (Dark Mark) 21:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL! As I've been around for a few years you've just made me feel young and n00b again! Basically I do my 'official' work under this, my real name, and the slight status change will improve my effectiveness while doing that work rather than have to 'call out' to someone else to part-assist. It is very much a "special case" though and you needn't worry about my socks, tights or any other clothing ;-P --AlisonW 21:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, yeah, yeah... like we'll buy that. Lemme guess, TINC? ;-) I just thought it was odd that the chair of the UK Chapter wasn't an admin. Just one of those things, I guess. And don't worry about feeling n00bish... Jimbo was just "officially welcomed" about a week ago. Thanks for all you do around here, by the way. I assume you don't get to contribute as a regular editor too much, but know that we appreciate your work nonetheless. See you around. -- You Know Who (Dark Mark) 23:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

General Comments
Greetings, BTW, oh-one-whose-other-account-I-know. ;-)

James F. (talk) 03:41, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Slang
I'm only removing them until someone finds a reliable source - a single one in the whole of the internet the article documents! - for them. It is not true that all 1.1million articles would be nothing but links off site; that would imply that none of them contained any other information whatsoever. It is not at all clear where the dividing line is. I mean, I found a source for LOL with a few seconds looking. I don't really want to go and find a source for ZOMGWTFBBQ, on the other hand. The relevant policies put the burden of proof firmly on the adding editor. If they can't, or won't, find any proof, then really that's just a bit tough. The article is a magnet for junk, cruft, things that aren't related to the internet, things that aren't slang, things that aren't internet slang and all sorts of other things. It's not just vandalism I'm removing: it's anything that doesn't belong. -Splash - tk 22:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, for those terms that actually do have some sensible currency, finding decent cites is easy: . -Splash - tk 22:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for restoring the congratulatory material from User talk:BradPatrick I seem to have accidentally deleted. I had left him a legal note, then seen he didn't want legal stuff on his user page, so I deleted my note -- and apparently other stuff with it somehow. --A. B. 00:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

User page
User page

Carefully selected quotes:
 * " ... However, pages in user space still do belong to the community: ..."
 * " Other users may edit pages in your user space ... "
 * " In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission. Some users are fine with their user pages being edited ... "

Sorry if I offended you. Stephen B Streater 18:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. I have always read that second listitem as referring to talkpages and not what a user writes about themselves (unless there exists a clear and immediate legal problem). If someone wishes to suggest that a change to a users own page would be appropriate then the talk page is there explicitly for the purpose. In this particular case the use of lower case and upper case in those places was specific and intentional. --AlisonW 19:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Lovely Election Candidates 2006
Hi. I considered speedying this myself, but held off, because there is a Kingdom of Lovely, it's a real thing (however Micronation and silly it may be). I added the hangon and told the user that notability and verifiability stuff needed adding. Please advise (I don't live in the UK so I don't know Lovely as well as UK people do) if you have a problem with my userifying this for the editor if he or she asks. You can reply here if you like.  + +Lar: t/c 21:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This evening I have been patrolling calls for speedy and also doing the 'random page walk' too. I've usually tended towards the policy that if someone else has called for speedy, and I've looked at it and can't see any justification for it (a) remaining in place (ie meets speedy criterion/a quoted) and (b) doesn't justify itself that it could be a valid and effective article, then deletion is the right way to go. If the originator can come up with an improved article then I welcome it, if they are just doing the fan/advertising/self-promo/gaming thing though, then probably not. --AlisonW 21:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The names seem to match names in the article, and the assertion of an electiom matches too. I'd suggest maybe it's AfD fodder rather than a speedy. The original assertion of "patent nonsense" was false. I'm not too sussed either way but did want you to be aware. If the originator cares, he'll let one of us know (I left him a message as I said above), presumably. If not, well... deletion was the right thing. PS I reverted a rather abusive comment here just now and warned that editor. He needs to be told that he should take the article to DRV now, I think.  + +Lar: t/c 21:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * re Lovely Election Candidates 2006 when I first saw it (tagged speedy) it didn't make any clear assertion to be related to anything else; it read as vandalism/dangerous (naming "DAVID BLUNKETT" for instance). AIH I'd already opened the page and was reviewing it when you made your edit, so I failed to see your addition. Given there is so little content, and what is there could be misconstrued, I'd suggest that this information would be better served as a para in the article on the micronation concerned. --AlisonW 22:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep. Let's let that one lie and see what the editor does.  + +Lar: t/c 22:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This is Danieljohnson, the author of the page about the Lovely election candidates. Visit http://elections.uni.cc/, the home site of the Lovely Electoral Commission. Also visit Citizens Required to access information on the election. DAVID BLUNKETT is the username of one of the election candidates.

Escape The Fate
I am well aware that it was extremly rude. I as trying to get your attention. Now listen up! Myspace.com is being used by millions of people. Escape the Fate has used this to their advantage to get millions of people to buy their first EP, just like that woman Tila Tequila. It doesnt matter that they dont have an album yet, what matters is that they are notable. I just went through a long and drawn out argument to keep the Cancer Bats article I created so I understand what notable entails. Now please put back the Escape the Fate article. They are signed to Epitaph, have recived only the best of ratings for the EP on punk review websites and are on tour accross the US right now and this sumemr will playing the main stage on Warped Tour. Just because you have your own article doesn't give you a right to delete other articles especially when I put up a clear warning that the notability of the band would seem questionable at first. Avenged Evanfold 21:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * While I don't condone uncivility ever, how long was the speedy tag on the article for before deletion? I held off putting one on myself and was watching the page to see if the creator could pass notability criteria... and I didn't see a tag. Could be I took my eye off the ball, ot it could be the tag was on for a very short time indeed - too short to insert a hangon? Dweller 21:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Take it to DRV, I'll support an undelete so it could go through AfD. I see the editor has recreated it though, which is a nono.  + +Lar: t/c 21:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Five minutes Avenged Evanfold 21:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not unreasonable. We get rid of cruft rather quickly. Better to create articles in your userspace till you're sure they're notable and verifiable, and then move them in. And please don't recreate deleted content... take it to DRV.  + +Lar: t/c 21:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I didnt recreate it, I was editing when it got deleted. I assumed when I said continue with edit even though it had got delted the whole thing would come back. I don't understand the bureaucracy, hwo to i list on AfD? Avenged Evanfold 21:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You appear to be missing the point here. WP is *not* the place you develop an article. Just as you wouldn't write and send an email ten words at a time, you write it offline/in one piece, and then send it off. Here, new articles - and tagged articles - need to have something in them that justifies their continued existence from the start. Yes, of course they will hopefully improve as time goes on, but readers who know nothing about the subject of an article deserve to be informed, not have to make guesses about what is going on. "Speedy" means exactly that, and there will usually be a number of editors watching the Category:Candidates for speedy deletion page, and reviewing for themselves what other people have tagged, and often they will concurr with the person who added the tag, sometimes they won't (and tonight I haven't always agreed with the tags I've found). As to the band, MySpace may be used by lots of people (including, as it happens, me) but that doesn't make them "notable". When they *are* notable they will be very welcome! --AlisonW 21:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you really cant read? Remeber when I said they recieved a 4.98 (out of 5) rating on Smartpunk and are the 4th most popular band on the site? Comment added by user:Avenged Evanfold


 * Any more rudeness like that and I really might take action. If you would look carefully at my comments, 'Smartpunk' and MySpace does not make them "notable" to the world at large. Wikipedia has readers all around the world and of all ages, and we seek to serve them good, valid, meaningful comment that is of a neutral point of view; that imforms not advertises. Your band does not meet those criteria. --AlisonW 21:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Forget about it, I'll just recreate it in word and then post it back up in a few days when its good and ready, do not answer me. Avenged Evanfold


 * If "millions of people [had bought] their first EP" (as you wrote in your second comment - first having been deleted) then they wouldn't just be yet another MySpace band. As I said earlier, if they are notable (in Wikipedia terms) then we will all be very happy for there to be a proper article about them. If not, I or another editor will, I have no doubt, delete it again. --AlisonW 22:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

First off, stop threatening me, this thing is over, and i have a right to ask you not to answer me. second, do you really think every article here affects the world at large? NO! but this article would affect the millions of people who like this band. now i'm done with this.Avenged Evanfold


 * You seem to be mistaken. I've made no threats (You have used unacceptable language previously, however). And please, NPOV means not trying to suggest that there are "millions of people who like this band". --AlisonW 22:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'm an *ssh*l*. But I would like to mention they do have an entry in allmusic.com, you must admit thats pretty impressive considering they only have the 1 EP. Even Saosin has 2. Avenged Evanfold 23:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No worries. I am constantly amazed that new bands continue to appear and "fight the apathy" to get themselves heard even when they can't get a decent deal anywhere and that - hopefully, eventually - they'll improve and get a wider exposure as they learn their craft. I too have bands I love that few others will have heard of and look forward to the day that an article about them meets the standards we set in WP:MUSIC. --AlisonW 08:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Interoute
Should I have just listed it for speedy? And if so, under what criteria? Luna Santin 21:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Advertising generally falls under #7 "Unremarkable people or groups/Vanity Pages. An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead." and, in this case, the content was clearly a puff piece and totally POV. Looking at the 'article' I tried to see if something NPOV could be extricated from it, but frankly it seemed that the only thing left would be the name of the company! Once I saw that the creator had passed it by their boss at the company in the marketing department then it became a definite and clear deletion, similar to someone writing their own over-the-top biography on here. As I noted on the talkpages, if there is a good, sensible, NPOV article out there on this company I'm sure one will eventually appear. What was there wasn't it. --AlisonW 21:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Alison, I absolutely would love this article to adhere to Wikipedia standards, however I did not understadn exactly what the standards were. Luna's marking was the first that I recieved and he said that he had to go to bed but that he would help me figure out how to change the site appropriately in the morning. I would like some help with reformatting the page Thanks WhitneyEllis 22:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see reply on your talkpage --AlisonW 22:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I will absolutely make the changes that you suggested. I actually was not attempting to make this article from a marketing point of view at all. The only reason that I thought my article was appropriate at the time was because I had not come up with the profile myself. I had used the wikipedia articles of other telecoms companies on your site to try and see what was allowed (i.e. products and services). I will make sure that the interoute article is "without puffery" in its next publicatoin. Thanks so much for your help (I had trouble decoding NPOV on my own)!!WhitneyEllis 08:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I deleted all of the products and services except for the section on Voice services and the introduction of iSip. I kept these because they definitely fit into the category of revolutionizing business and the entire way that business looks at voice over IP. (Although I did not use these words, no worries:)I think that I took out all of the puffery. What do you think? The only thing that I would still like to put in, if you think it would be alright is the map that I had on earlier. The reason is because it is an easy way to show the expanse of the network, and how it is different from other companies (namely the fact that the company has spread to Dubai (unheard of in telecoms) and that the company can be found in 24 of 25 countries in the EU). I tried to think of other ways to express this in words, but they all seemed to be too filled with puffery (sorry I really liked the word :) ) Any thoughts on this, or the article in general? WhitneyEllis 08:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Can I move my in progress page to the real interoute page?WhitneyEllis 13:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC

Im sorry to hear that you were ill, hope all is well now. I included the James Kinsella section only because it links to a very succinct and clear explanation of how iSip...honestly, a really cool techinical revolution...works. I do agree that it is unfortunate that it is Jim Kinsella explaining it, but it is really interesting knowledge, especially for Skypers or anyone with any Skype experience. If you think its obnoxious though, its really no problem for me to jus tdelete it.WhitneyEllis 13:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * My issue wasn't about the statement/link, but about its positioning - it seems to break the flow of that section so should probably go in the "==External links" section further down. --AlisonW 23:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Dragon Champion
Please restore the Dragon Champion page. If all the users on Wikipedia and all the real-life people like George W. Bush and Jackie Chan can have their own pages, why can't I, since I'm known as a member on Neoseeker, GameFAQs, Pokémon NetBattle and other sites. Comment added by User:Dark Dragon Master1337 06:19, 15 June 2006
 * Whilst I am certainly gratified that we have a user who considers themselves in the same league as Messrs Bush and Chan, the primary difference with "all the [other] users on Wikipedia" is that they put such a papge on their User: page, not as a mainspace article. --AlisonW 08:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Then is it possible to move the contents that were previously in the deleted page here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dragon_Champion ?
 * Yes it can be and I have now done so. Please note the comments I have made on your talkpage however about what content is appropriate to a user page on wikipedia; most of what is there currently isn't. --AlisonW 10:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandal warning me
Please will you take a look at the most recent addition to my personal talk page. It was a bit of a surprise, receiving a "final warning" from a racist vandal. Advice/help warmly welcomed. Dweller 12:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * See note on your talkpage. "I'm watching" ;-P


 * Ta. I guess it's handy to have a friendly admin watching one's user page.--Dweller 11:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
/me thanks you for your well-wishes. Cross your fingers for me!--BradPatrick 02:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Unicode
Could you please check the editor/browser you're using? It seems to destroy some Unicode content, as in this edit, which turned the Japanese interwiki into a bunch of question marks. (Typically happens with some old text-based browsers and some external editors). Thank you, Kusma (討論) 03:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh dear; no idea why that might have happened. My external editor is UltraEdit which is fully unicode, but thanks for the catch - and I shall pay closer attention to any non-latin characters in future edits to ensure it doesn't happen again. --AlisonW 09:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

IP blocking
Please do not block IP addresses that are not open proxies for longer then a month, as this is against policy. If you would change the indef blocks you just made, it would be very much appreciated. Thank you, Prodego  talk 18:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * See my comment at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents, but I'd also extract the following from WP:BLOCK:
 * For static IPs and user names, such blocks should initially last 24 hours, but repeat violators may be blocked for increasing lengths of time. ... However, indefinite blocks should not be used against isolated incidents of disruption from IP addresses nor against user accounts that make a mixture of disruptive and useful edits.
 * The problem here is that these 20 IPs are *only* making disruptive/vandal edits. It isn't a "mixture". Together with the only option left on most being "indefinite" re increasing lengths of time then there was no real option. I wish there was, but all of those IPs have been repeatedly and repeatedly warned, with no effect. This is all we have left as a way of dealing with the clear and present problem. --AlisonW 18:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * These IPs were blocked for vandalism however, correct? In which case, a one month restriction is in place. Prodego  talk 18:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It isn't that simple, sadly. cf Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive65 and Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive54. We need a better *technical* solution that permits whitelisting, but until that point we will continue to have a very serious problem. Blocking for one month at a time serves no purpose whatsoever as all that does is increase admin overhead in blocking the twenty addresses once a month manually. --AlisonW 18:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That seems logical, and in this case the blocks seem justified. Nevertheless, policy does not permit such blocks, and I wouldn't want to set a precedent. Also won't this block both Celestianpower and Sceptre? Prodego  talk 18:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * blocks seem justified. Believe me, I really wish the blocks weren't justified! I just can't see we have a way around the problem which has clearly been ongoing for a long time. As regards the users concerned they will have to continue using the procedure they do presently, of asking for the block to be temporarily lifted (all the IPs concerned are blocked most of the time anyway and that is what they have needed to do in the past). What we need - as has been pointed out before - is the 'white list' option on handles to bypass IP locks. --AlisonW 19:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * See Abuse_reports/Internet_for_Learning, perhaps a month is all that is needed. Prodego  talk 19:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Except that as month-long blocks have been tried *repeatedly* they clearly (sadly) don't. --AlisonW 19:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Policy-wise this does not become a problem until the first month runs out... between now and then, I propose that we change the blocks to one month and see if we can't get a consensus from the community as to whether these IP's should be blocked for a month, indefinitely, or for some other period. I have great faith that we can arrive at a solution agreeable to all. If admin overhead is a concern, I'll pledge to continue reseting the blocks as long as vandalism persists from these IP's until a solution is agreed upon (and I'm sure Prodego  will back me up in that task, yes?). Cheers!   BD2412  T 19:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * cf. Bugzilla 550 --AlisonW 19:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, then let's bring that discussion to this Wikiproject and put it to the community to decide whether longer blocks should be the rule on Wikipedia (I recognize that many Wikipedians have thrown their voices into that conversation, but I'm not sure I see a generally approved solution in that lengthy discussion. BD2412  T 19:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I really don't want to see longer blocks become "the rule" but I think we as editors have to realise that there are times when pre-existing policy just fails to have a ready solution to a given problem. We do have a tendency to discuss ad infinitem (such as the over two years on people asking for that change) though, sadly. --AlisonW 19:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * We're talking in circles here. The fact that policy can take a long time to adjust to the situation on the ground does not detract from the force of that policy. Remember the words Robert Bolt scripted to Thomas More, when More is challenged for his willingness to let the devil go free until he breaks the law:
 * What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ... And when the law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast - Man's laws, not God's - and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
 * Our policies are our laws, and this is one area to which WP:IAR most certainly does not apply. BD2412  T 21:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, either gain support for a community ban, or propose the policy be changed, but make sure to follow the rules. Prodego  talk 22:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's start over from the basics. How are the IP addresses that you seek to block different from all other IP addresses? What is peculiar to their situation that makes a permablock particularly appropriate? I think the community will be receptive to a narrowly drawn rule that ferrets out the particular problem here. BD2412 T 22:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I too think sometime exceptions should be made, so a policy addition should be made to define when. I also wish Bugzilla 550 were gaining more ground, but... Prodego  talk 22:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The primary difference for these IP addresses is that they are static IPs (not a dial-up general ISP) and that they are identifiable and confirmably primarily used by school children. Similarly, evidence on all the talkpages shows repeated warnings over vandalism and disruption to Wikipedia and User contributions is clear on showing the extreme scarcity of actual "contributions". We have to be realistic here in trying to find a way to Wikipedia work without encouraging vandalism and disruption. Blocking each of the 20 addresses once a month doesn't add anything to either the IP-user's experience or to our administrative capability. We have to recognise that when you have warned, warned and warned again then one day you have to carry out the threat and block. --AlisonW 22:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The one month cap is for static IPs. Dynamic IPs should be blocked for a maximum of twenty-four hours. Prodego  talk 22:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not what the policy says. As I've quoted it a number of times now, "repeat violators may be blocked for increasing lengths of time.". --AlisonW 22:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've opened up a discussion on the topic here - please share your points with the community. Cheers! BD2412  T 22:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

article in Dutch newspaper
Hi, you're cited in an article in De Volkskrant, a Dutch daily newspaper. The article contains at least nine errors, including citing you as the "chief editor of the British Wikipedia". It's only in Dutch, but available here online. It's a Very Bad Article. --Gerrit CUTEDH 10:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

MEG WHITMAN, GIANT POSTER
HI, I'M NEW IN WIKIPéDIA PROJECT. IT IS POSSIBLE I COULD HAVE MADE A MISTAKE... BUT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHY YOU DECIDE TO ERASE MY PAGES WHITH THE MEG WHITMAN'S PICTURES, WITHOUT TELLING ME OR SAY SOMETHING ?!?!?!?!?!!??!!??!!??!?!?!?!?!!!???!!!??? IN CASE YOU DON'T KNOW THESE PICTURES WERE ATTACHED TO A FRENCH WIKIPéDIA PAGE I CREATED :
 * Meg Whitman : Posters géants

this article is now in discussion. no use to explain you it is completly stupid to discuss an article without the possibility to look after its own pictures !!!!! and essentially when this article is about these pictures !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i would be glad if you where able to put back the 6 pictures you erase in the commons. thank you very much... Elge reint --  télé scripteur 21:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * answered at the deletion discussion on fr:wikipedia


 * thanks for your answer, but i'd rather prefer you wrote it in english, cause you're sentence is gramaticaly wrong and i just can understand nothing.

and thank you to put back my pictures on line.

Elge reint --  télé scripteur 08:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Whilst my french-language skills may not be great, I do note that another user there was able to understand my intent and has posted so.
 * Pour information, quands je les trouve, les images avez l'appearence de utiliser Wikimedia Commons comme une webhost libre; un parasite seulement pour la publicité. Le tab "Check usage" exposer pas d'usage. --AlisonW 24 juin 2006 à 23:56 (CEST)
 * "For information, when I found them, the pictures appeared to be using Wikimedia Commons as a free webhost; a (bandwidth) thief using them for publicity. The "check usage" tab (on commons) did not list any (project) usage."
 * To clarify further; I was pointed at the images on Commons by another user and they were inspected by a number of users. The images appeared to be not relevant to any Wikimedia project, especially given the scribbles on them, and were of a size that also suggested non-Wikimedia usage, indeed, they explicity made reference to their usage on eBay. After further discussion - and checking that they did not appear to be in use on any project - it was decided that they should be deleted and I undertook that task.
 * Wikimedia Commons is available for non-text content that can be re-used across multiple projects. It isn't there to host images for people to use on eBay and other non-Wikimedia websites. To all appearances, the images concerned were being used for precisely that purpose. --AlisonW 13:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection
I'm sorry that we got off on the wrong foot and that I've been a bit overzealous on that template page. I hope we can figure this stuff out. Haukur 09:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * np, we both have our POV I suppose and need to find some solution that works best for the readership of WP rather than the far smaller percentages of editors and (even moreso) admins. --AlisonW 14:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you...
Delete User: Conservative Joe since no one is using the account? Thanks. 63.23.50.162 01:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Without any evidence of a connection I doubt that anyone would consider such a request, and certainly this isn't the right place to ask either. --AlisonW 09:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The Frosties Kid
Hi, thanks for reporting back to me. I am not really too fussed witht he article, only I do know about the subject matter and was trying to put correct and ammend what Wikipediatrix was doing (the user who has been constantly tagging inaaporiately and manipulating the article to suit her POV). I was asked by another user to deal witht he problem of the article and having attempted to reason with Wikipediatrix she carelessly disregarded the arguments at hand and simply changes the article without any appropiation or valid reason, this in my eyes is careless POV vandalism. Wikipedia is not here to suit other people's requirements, but to share information on subjects which may not be globally recognised. In this case it is clear that Wikipediatrix who is American has no knowledge or any idea about the subject that this article entails. I having lived here in the UK understand and know that this subject has sparked huge controversy and interest in the media as is sourced byt he links other users have provided. The only reason I reverted the article from the previous tags is because Wikipediatrix has constantly tagged it with inapporpiate tags that bear no purpose i.e. Debating the Factuality of an article when it is clearly sourced and has an official statement from Kellogs and other newspapers, or tagging for POV, when the article is simply shedding light on the rumours and controversy of the lead actor playing the Frosties Kid. I made sure to make the article neutral and encyclopedic before she once again adapted it. Thanks for your concern, I was only trying to help. Piecraft 12:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, wondering if you could unlock the Frosties Kid article. I've asked Tony Sideways but he has not come back to me. It's been locked for more than a week. really think we are ready to move on. Thanks. --Jum4 08:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Kenwalker
What did Kenwalker (talk • contribs • [ page moves ] • block user • [ block log ]) do? Just zis Guy you know? 19:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Response at User talk:Kenwalker --AlisonW 08:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Userbox
Hello. A userbox you are using (Template:User female) has been moved to user space per WP:GUS. The new link is User:UBX/female. The link currently being used on your page is a cross-namespace redirect and will not last. If you wish to keep your userbox, it is advisable to change to the new link. If you have any questions about why you are receiving this message, please read this and leave any questions you may still have on my talk page. Thank you. — Mi ra  06:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello again, I hope I'm not being nosy or pushy or anything, but I noticed just noticed you are using Template:Babel for your userboxes. For the userbox to work properly, you would actually have to use ":MiraLuka/Userboxes/User female" as the link. Sorry for any possible confusion. — Mi ra  08:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Can You Unblock Me Please
I was genuinely shocked when, out of curiousity, I had checked into Wikipedia and found that I was blocked for linkspamming? Forgive me if I don't understand Wiki as much as those who spend a great portion of their time here and who are really passionate about it but maybe I just missed a rule somewhere? Perhaps wrongly, I had assumed it was ok to write about myself with links to my various sites within my user profile.

That's all I can think of where someone who lives and breathes wiki might have found me in violation of linkspamming rules, but honestly, I just didn't know that was unacceptable. Now, when it comes to speeding, or being in possession of stolen goods, ignorance is no excuse, but can you just give me a break here?

I honestly don't even have a pressing need to be unblocked right now, but it's just a matter of principle. If that was the offense, it was an error sincerely made. For the record, though, I HAVE tried to contribute. I once tried to make mention, in the section titled MAGIC, of the world's longest running stage magic theater group (31years) which is in the Guiness book of World records and has played at the US White House on 8 occassions. Wiki says to edit aggressively and I didn't even think that was too aggressive but whoever was hanging out there thought it unimportant...guiness book of world records, and white house on 8 occasions = not important. ok...

Anyways, can you please unblock me and explain to me what the violation was. "Linkspamming" was the charge, but it was not specific. Was it my links to my sites in describing myself? Because this name is about to be branded. It's been around for 3 years and going strong. And I kept it to the user profile.

Thanks, Username: Sam Freedom


 * Please see response at User_talk:Sam_Freedom

Sam Freedom's block
Sam came across me and asked for help getting unblocked. I am not an admin but am on unblock-en-l so I guess that's why he came to me, but anyways.

I looked at some of Sam's contributions and don't see the linkspamming that you blocked him for in my initial review. I also am curious as it appears that his last contributions were many months ago, and yet you blocked very recently. This situation appears very odd to me. Could you let me (and him, I guess) know in more detail what this block was for?

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 23:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

MyWikiBiz Block
My thoughts are that a block is a bit OTT, for what seemed like a bit of light-heartedness. You also failed to sign your notification of the block at the AFD for Converium Holding AG. Catchpole 15:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It isn't "light-hearted" though as this user was previously blocked and then permitted to return (by Jimbo) on the strict understanding that he would not push his business activity. Whilst he did subsequently remove the comment (post my edit, but pre block taking effect) it was clearly an advertising pitch. I shall now comment elsewhere about the AFD, but my action was not predicated on the AFD itself. --AlisonW 15:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Tnc123?
They have an unblock template up on. I assume they were spamming articles that were speedied or something? I just want some background to put in the unblock reviewed template, unless its an error. Thanks! Syrthiss 19:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup, the user also direct mailed me. They'd posted a full-scale advert for (presumably their) travel company, with phone numbers, addresses, websites, and details of services offered. *Not* what WP is for. --AlisonW 19:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh, ok. Unblock denied coming up. Syrthiss 19:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete tags
Hi there; I happened to come across your page while chasing down a vandal, and noted your comment about not always agreeing with speedy tags. I have been a Wikipedian only for some five months; I recognise your greater experience. I spend a lot of time new page patrolling, hopefully reasonably efficiently. But it would be nice to get some feedback. I do not need pats on the back for doing things right, but I am certain that some articles I tag do not ultimately get deleted; the law of averages dictates this. I know that I can go through my "contributions" file, but this takes forever. Is there any way of notifying NP patrollers of inaccuracies? Doing so should, with luck, improve our performance. --Anthony.bradbury 21:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

MyWikiBiz.com article misinformation
Alison, I know that you mean well, but you have botched a number of the facts that are in the public record within Wikipedia, regarding my business. Please see my comments at Talk:MyWikiBiz.com. If you'd like to undo your errors, that would be appreciated; or, I hope that someone else will come along and correct the highly misleading interpretations of events that you've published. Thanks. --MyWikiBiz 17:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please refer to my comments on the article's talkpage regarding the accuracy of my corrections. --AlisonW 18:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)